|
User talk:CastJared/Archive 1
November 2022 CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.8.244. Place any further information here. CastJared (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Decline reason: If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. December 2022CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.8.244. Place any further information here. CastJared (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Decline reason: Nothing has changed since your last request. If you have additional information to provide, please, in a new request, replace the words "Place any further information here" with your additional information. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.8.244. I did do anything wrong. I have my account with it. CastJared (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Decline reason: The IP is blocked but you aren't, so this is a procedural decline. I advise you to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow the instructions there to apply for IP block exemption so this won't be a problem. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The edit summary field looks like this: Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes) Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →
Please, slow downThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi CastJared, I noticed your edit on The Last of Us Part I, which was reverted by Rhain. I've skimmed over your edits, and I want to ask you kindly to slow down a bit. As a registered editor, you've been here since 29 November, 34 days to be precise. The bulk of your edits are constructive and very welcome, but there are some things you probably wouldn't have done with a greater understanding of Wikipedia.
Now, again, the bulk of your edits are excellent in nature and honestly believe you are trying to help. But when it comes to stuff like policy and issuing warnings, I urge you to slow down a bit and make sure you're familiar with guidelines. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, and happy editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Draft relating to HBO controversiesI made a draft relating to HBO controversies, surrounding with it's original programming. Draft:HBO controversies CastJared (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (January 6)
January 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Euphoria (American TV series)) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Salvio 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (January 6)
Inappropriate warningsRespectfully, you are not in a position to give out warnings like this. You have been on Wikipedia for less than two months and should not be handing out warnings about disruptive editing until you gain more experience yourself. Additionally, please read our policies and guidelines on reliable sources; forums and IMDb are not reliable sources, so your additions to R62A (New York City Subway car) had been removed for that reason. However, your edits to R32 (New York City Subway car) were fine, as they complied with our policy on reliable sources. I see that you were notified just last week about this. I'm going to repeat what Soetermans said at that time: "With established editors, don't use standard templates but try talking to them if there's an issue." As a reminder, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a guideline that editors are expected to follow all the time. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC) 96 Tube StockHi CastJared, the London Underground 1996 Stock (and 1995 Stock) are not related to the Alstom Metropolis sets used on the North East MRT line. At the time, they were designed and manufactured by GEC Alsthom-Metro-Cammell, before the Metropolis design was first introduced in the late 1990s. (The 199X Stock design was in the early 1990s). I have reverted your edits. Turini2 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You made a mistakeRe: this post on my talk, I left an edit summary. Why did you post this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
You made another mistakeYou posted this to my talk page, yet have no involvement in the article, provided any discussion about the issue, or referenced the edit summary which was used. Was there a reason you did not give the warning (or the perceived slight) to the original poster of the information?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 14Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euphoria (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Hougang MRT stationHi there before adding Bare URL templates please check if there is any bare reference in the page. Your edit for the page, Hougang MRT station, has been reverted since there is no bare reference. Egeymi (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Further changes to Emmy nominationsHi, following up on this discussion, I noticed you reverted the character names at 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards and 74th Primetime Emmy Awards by citing WP:STATUSQUO, but the status quo at those articles for months had been to use the names given in the nominations list. You also say it applies for HBO characters without (a) updating any other characters or (b) directly linking a source. Is there any reason you think that information should override what the official nominations say (since that list should be the definitive source for Emmy articles, at least in my opinion)? RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Continued inappropriate warningsWelcome to Wikipedia. It's been a busy two months since your arrival here. I note that, not unlike many brand new editors, you received a number of suggestions, corrections and warnings on your talk page. This is to be expected, and provides helpful direction to new editors such as yourself. I also note that, with that entire first month of experience, your second month has you suddenly spending over 30% of your time editing other user talk: pages, using your one month's worth of "wisdom" to give hundreds of warnings and threats to others. To repeat what Epicgenius said to you here, which already notes several other examples of your work, you are not in a position to give out these inappropriate warnings. Many of them are directed towards issues that you are not even a part of – but rather show you co-opting the work of other users. These after-the-fact warnings that you are giving, based on some other user's work, such as here, here, here and here, is not what a secondary party is responsible for. The user who performed the original corrective edit has done the work. As a further note, once you have been an editor here for longer than your current two months, you will come to realize that having to create a talk page for an IP user is often moot. Many of your after-the-fact warnings went to IP users who had made only the one edit you are warning about – they are not receiving your inappropriate warning because they are not there anymore. If you look at the contributions page for the IP user you are targeting, you will see the standard Wikipedia comment "This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users." You will also be able to see if they are a regular contributor or if they are a a one-and-gone. In most cases, you have carried out an inappropriate co-opting of someone else's corrective edit, by leaving a warning to a user who is not even there. Yes, it is frustrating when these drive-by edits by IP users occur, but someone else has already fixed it, and the IP user (when it is vandalism, like this one, or when it is done in good faith, like many others you piled on against), are never going to see your co-opting effort. Like Soetermans said to you earlier this month, slow down a bit. You started strong, and have made hundreds of constructive edits to articles and even started a draft of a new article. Nice work. Focus on continuing those efforts, keep developing your skills, and step back from some (most?) of the time spent giving hundreds of warnings to other users, including IP users who will never see them anyway. Thank you for getting involved in Wikipedia, always be learning (17 years and I still learn new tools and tricks here every day), and let the joyful part of being a contributing user wash over you. Jmg38 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)
Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (February 13)
DYK nomination of List of awards and nominations received by Euphoria
Birth datesPlease stop adding birth dates to WP:BLPs. I don't believe you have a strong enough understanding of reliable sourcing criteria to take on this task.-- Ponyobons mots 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
New message from Narutolovehinata5 Message added 08:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (February 21)
FunimationThanks for the edits at Funimation, if the IP does one more move again, kindly block him and undo the edits. -174.91.109.231 (talk)- — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Continued sourcing issuesYou have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyobons mots 00:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have certain reasons why I suppose to find a reliable source, but there is too many citations nearby. CastJared (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Decline reason: This is incoherent. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Discussion on the wording of 3RRHi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't template meMy edits were made in good faith. If the consensus is against me I accept that. Leaving a vandalism template on an experienced editor's talk page is just insulting. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Your removal of the A-HA content from The Last of Us (TV series)Your removal is not acceptabel. The info was correct and link to article with info was provided: https://collider.com/last-of-us-episode-7-take-me-on/?fbclid=IwAR0lI-RD3BJU7AtCZ_lDHzWVI3aukdkeao296xDW3uBXwDjnJ8j14joodX0. I also find it odd that you specifically only removed the info on A-ha but let info on other music stay. There has been multipal articles about A-ha's song and the various items related to them in the series and how boith the orignal, but also a cover of Take On Me has been used in the series. Even the series creator and the game creator has commented on how they were added both to the series and game in the past and how Paul Waaktar Savoy was contacted via his wife and asked for permision and how he felt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxsM1b8dBI . So yes, fairly important song. The info wich was clealry very modest will be added back on albite somewaht rewritten Mortyman (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page about my editing of the wording about Ellie killing David. Saying that she overpowered him is a bit inaccurate. She's a petite early teen girl and David is an adult man. She's being overpowered by David but manages to grab a meat cleaver that is behind her and uses it to kill him. It was an edit based on how it is worded, the same sources used are already there. I don't want to get into some stupid revert war on this. I think we could just go for something that reflects that she kills him with a meat cleaver without the misleading use of overpower. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Archives on working sourcesSorry, I'm not understanding the reason to add archives to working pages [1], especially when those archives contain 2-5 years old data. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I have explained how the information you've added is not verified (WP:VERIFY a policy) by your citations at all in edit summaries, it's speculation and/or not relevant at all. You have made an edit, that was reverted, you should start a discussion to gain consensus for your edit. I am restoring the WP:STATUSQUO so WP:ONUS is on you. Indagate (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Did you use the BOT wrongIn this edit you apparently intended to use IABot (?) to "rescue 1 source", but the BOT actually reverted your entire prior edit. You may need to review how to use it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Annamalai K (April 3)
Timing of bot edits; concerns with "obscurring" recent disruptionYour frequent "Rescuing n sources" edits are frequently being applied to articles that have been the subject of a noticeboard posting where there is active edit-warring or disruption, and fairly often, your bot edits are obscuring disruptive edits, so that it's not obvious that the most recent edit was disruptive. You can see an example here where your bot edits come immediately after an edit-warring IP made an edit. What exactly is triggering those source-rescue edits? OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Good faith editsYour recently reverted edits on Youtube PRemium as good faith edits Those sure arent my definition of good faith Starship 24 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) DYK for List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus On 8 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the 2022 Primetime Emmy Awards The White Lotus was nominated in five categories and won in all? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Article nominations ResolvedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please ensure you are famillar with the rules before nominating an article for something like "good article" status, or DYK. Can see you nominated many but been reverted with explanation, then in some cases restored your nomination without explanation. Please read WP:GAI thoroughly, especially part "Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article". Making that many nominations will mean you will not be able to respond to feedback appropriately. I'm not a reviewer, but I think your Succession DYK nomination will fail as not created in the last week, you've not expanded it 5x, or reached good article status, per the qualification rules. You have nominated an article for DYK before, but seemingly didn't respond to the feedback at all, which is essential to the process. Any questions, please ask someone somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations instead of making mass nominations or similar in the future. Pinging other editors who reverted your nominations @ZooBlazer: @Rhain:. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing discussionsThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please note that not all discussions have to be closed, as explained at this link. Your closure of two discussions at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring has beeen reverted, especially as one was only three days old. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copying without attribution (third warning)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
caution on Final WarningsThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I just undid a "Final warning" notice that you placed on User talk:Sharkdogdaughter, as the editor hadn't done any editing since the initial warning was given. If an editor seems to be responding appropriately to being warned, it's counterproductive to warn them again. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of House of the Dragon characters (April 13)
Trouted
You have been trouted for: Special:Diff/1149840998 - "Keep - this is a controversial article"? That's a pretty silly reason to keep. While I appreciate irony, these discussions are meant for serious, policy-based rationale. I think reading (or re-reading) over pages such as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:Deletion policy would be a very good idea for you to do. (This isn't any sort of warning and you're not in trouble - hence the trout, don't worry about it. Just please don't do it again.) casualdejekyll 21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Trouted (2)
You have been trouted for: Reverting a political candidate for local elections, despite sources being outdated and no records of such claims via the citation are available. aka, reinforcing shaky citations. Hansenxyz (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Why are you turning currently live links into archived links? What's the advantage to this? Do you have a Wikipedia policy that suggests doing this, or a consensus of editors supporting your edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archives (again)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Every person in responsible for their semi-automated edits, which include adding archives. If the added archives are outdated compared to the content in the articles and the source they are based on - the edit to add such archives is unconstructive. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IABotManagementConsoleThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hey, how do you rescue sources using IABotManagementConsole [1.2]? Thanks in advance! RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Running rescue scripts on articles in WP:RFPPThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relisting of AfD CandidatesThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hey @CastJared, I noticed that you relisted two AfD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Bangkok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Brussels. Can you explain why you relisted these? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuing closed/archived convo on AfD closuresThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hey @CastJared, you closed and archived the conversation about AfD closure, so as per your request, I am opening a new one. I'm really worried by your response It appears that several other people have suggested you slow down your automated editing and editing in project space. I second that suggestion. Also, as others have noted, you don't need to close every conversation on your talk page. You are entirely allowed to close conversations and to archive or remove things from your talk page, but doing so rapidly every time someone raises a concern with your editing may be taken as a sign that you are not listening to other editors. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EuphoriaThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. How come IT isn't a psychological drama? 2A00:1028:83BC:4CE:5C7B:D892:8C07:2D7C (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (June 17)The first is that most of these controversies are already present on the Wikipedia pages for each television series. For example Game of Thrones and Leaving Neverland both have sections dedicated to their respective controversies. The second reason is WP:DUEWEIGHT. HBO has broadcast a huge number of television shows and films, including original productions. Many releases will have some level of controversy, but it's not necessary, feasible or even helpful to readers to put that all on one page. A section summarizing controversies from each show would not be allowed on the HBO page for that reason. There really doesn't seem to be a rationale for creating this page. I do appreciate the work you put into this, and maybe you can add some content to the series' pages if anything is missing. That way it's not a wasted effort. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies has been accepted Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! – Joe (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Nomination of HBO controversies for deletion The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBO controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Notice of noticeboard discussion
About your AFD votesThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I noticed that you always use "Agreed with all the editors involved" for "strong" stances, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Your votes are WP:MAJORITY and should be avoided. You are encouraged to point out which guidelines you are referring, and please do some background research before voting to make a meaningful vote. Also please utilize the use of "strong". Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
June 2023 If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I stating that I should have competence. CastJared (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Decline reason:
This is not a valid unblock request rationale, consensus forming at ANI that this was a good block. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This block will no longer be necessary because I will not continue to cause a disruption and will make useful contributions instead. CastJared (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Decline reason: Please show your ability to do so on another project. Repeated unblock requests here will lead to you losing access to edit this page. Star Mississippi 02:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
|
